SR 113-2: The People Should Decide Amendment (Failed)

[Mr. Reactionary]

Senate Resolution

To amend the Constitution to require special elections for at-large Senate vacancies.

Be it Resolved in the Atlasian Senate Assembled, that upon ratification by 2/3rds of the Regions, the constitution shall be amended as follows:

The People Should Decide Amendment

Article III, Section 2, shall read as follows:

Section 2. Elections to the Senate.

The manner of election for at-large Senators shall be as follows:

i. The nine at-large Senators shall be elected for a term of two months by the eligible voters of the Republic according to a method of proportional representation prescribed by the Senate. Elections for the seats shall be held in the months of February, April, June, August, October, and December.

ii. If no other method of proportional representation is prescribed by law, at-large Senate elections shall operate on single transferable vote.

iii. At-large Senate vacancies occuring within thirty days of the next election shall be filled through appointment by the executive of the former Senator’s Party; but should a vacancy occur as the result of the death, expulsion, or resignation of an at-large Senator not being a member of a major Party or of an at-large Senator more than thirty days prior to the next election, then a special election shall be held within twenty days of the vacancy to choose a replacement to serve the remainder of the existing term.

This Constitutional Amendment requires a special election to be held to fill a vacancy in the Senate created by the death, resignation, or removal of an at-large member more than thirty days prior to the next election. This empowers the people of Atlasia rather than corrupt political parties to choose who represents them and prevents candidates from deceptively and unethically running for at-large Senate solely to resign and allow a party to undemocratically install a replacement.

Sponsor: Laki
Debate in this Resolution is now open.

[Liminal Trans Girl]

I think that this would be a good way to fill vacancies

[Mr. Reactionary]

Its back.

This is an amendment to the constitution to provide for elections of the people rather than big party bosses to fill senate vacancies.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Like the last time this was introduced, I think this only helps the big parties and their bosses rather than the people. This prevents smaller parties like the DA from ensuring their representation as any special election to a seat vacated by their members would quite easily become a 2-way race between the two largest parties, with smaller ones having no real way to realistically compete. I get the reasoning why this may be thought of as a good idea, but for the reasons I've outlined I'll have to oppose it for now.

[Sirius_]

I would agree with Weatherboy, the current method best preserves the result that the people voted for. Third party voters get shut out of a national special election unless there's an unusual circumstance.

[Joseph Cao]

Oh dear, are we doing this again?

The idea behind the bill and its predecessors is fundamentally irreconcilable with how we elect the representatives we are trying to replace to begin with. We've gone over this at least three times, almost certainly more, and nobody has provided a sound justification for switching from one method of election to another as the bill would propose, because there isn't one.

Here's the first time I responded when this was brought up:

Our special elections are a carryover from the USA OTL, where House special elections are held to fill a vacant seat for the remainder of a term. In OTL these elections are held within a district, with a specific electorate which is reasonably close to the electorate that previously elected the dead, expelled, resigning, or incapacitated representative. When we say "will of the people," this is the constituency of people we are referring to. But we use STV for House elections, and there is no guarantee that this OTL property will hold in Atlasia under those conditions. Technically speaking, the same nationwide electorate elected razze and Jessica in December. Their voters are scattered around the country, however, and it is not a given that, in the hypothetical event of a Jessica resignation, Jessica's voters will be the ones getting to decide on a replacement for the representative to whom they previously gave a mandate, even though they are the "people" whose will we wish to gauge. In fact, as things stand, they will always be overridden by razze voters. It is more democratic in the sense that the majority of our electorate would prefer a left-leaning representative to fill a vacancy, and thus a 9-0 House if all nine seats simultaneously required a special election for each seat.

If Lumine's goal is to give voters a direct say over who represents them, and we are referring to the voters who elected the vacating representative, then there is no directly democratic way of satisfying their will – it would be disingenuous to hold an election for them and them only.

And the second:

There is no consistent theoretical basis for electing an at-large senator by one method (STV), with one voter base, and then switching to a different method (FPTP) and different voter base to replace that representative in the event of a vacancy. It does not do the job of making sure those voters are represented, as the goal for special elections ought to be. That is done far better when party chairs can appoint an ideologically similar replacement that preserves the will expressed by those voters.

And the third:

We discussed this before, multiple times actually. Logistically there is no good way to ensure the franchise that elected the vacating congressman is the same one that could elect its successor in a special, and for that reason alone I'm inclined to think the bill as it stands won't work.

The point being disputed is the representation which that congressman's electorate is entitled to. What Yankee did, for example when LT ran for the Senate and vacated his House seat (which is basically the situation here ignoring incumbency concerns), was pledge to appoint someone of the same ideological persuasion to the seat to preserve that representation to the fullest extent possible.

Every time this gets brought up I also talk about how for the actual existing issue of resigning independents or minor party members, which this bill again does not touch, there is a ready solution: to bind the presiding officer to appoint someone who best fits the departing congressman ideologically or otherwise. The rest of it is setting a problem to catch a problem.

[Joseph Cao]

As to the point WB and Sirius raised though I will say such unusual circumstances seem to be becoming more of a norm than they would have been in 2019 or thereabouts since "two largest parties" has become kind of meaningless in terms of which players actually run for specials, see for instance Wulfric running in yet another one in a region whose legislature has been majority third party for quite a while, which also happens to be the only region where legislative specials actually occur.

We haven't heard from the sponsor either, have we? I'd like to know his thoughts.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have opposed this every time that Ishan brought it up. I understand the concern here certainly, and that is why under my leadership I have gone to great lengths to ensure that various factions on the right are not subordinated when vacancies occur. That being said, the preservation of such voices and their elimination can just as easily be silenced via the 51% subjugating the 11% that would otherwise be sufficient to win a seat, and there by eliminating dissent.

The benefits of the At-large, is that it allows a gradient of voices to be heard as a product of the election. This way various niches are represented, at the same time, the majority is respected. Its a great balance, and one that a 50+1% special election cannot adequately replicate (see above).

Love or hate Deadprez, his niche views would not get close to 50% in a special election. The same can be said of various groups on the left, various third parties and such forth. In this way, in the blind quest for majority rule, we actually are diminishing the elected "representative" composition in favor of the biggest machine.

There have been times in the past where the right went entirely without at-large representation, pre-reset when this policy was in effect. Summer of 2009 was one such example.

There were times when people felt they had to stay in office when they needed to resign bc of RL concerns, because the seat would certainly flip if vacated mid term.

Its one of those things that sounds good at first glance, but there is a reason we abandoned this approach around the time of reset. Let's not turn back the clock on this one.  

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

As to the point WB and Sirius raised though I will say such unusual circumstances seem to be becoming more of a norm than they would have been in 2019 or thereabouts since "two largest parties" has become kind of meaningless in terms of which players actually run for specials, see for instance Wulfric running in yet another one in a region whose legislature has been majority third party for quite a while, which also happens to be the only region where legislative specials actually occur.

We haven't heard from the sponsor either, have we? I'd like to know his thoughts.

More of a normal currently, but that can change with the drop of the hat. There have been two definite periods when one party or whoever that party backed, were basically assured of victory in any head to head election. 2009-2012 and 2019-2022. Sure, there were close ones in both periods (for President), but in the case of the former, the JCP won something like 8 out of 9 At-large specials.

Its not the same constituency, and yet the 50+1% is acclaimed to possess the righteous title to decide who gets to succeed a representative elected on a 11% constituency. Its a recipe for a legislature arbitrarily titled towards the big center left party, at the expense of everyone else, especially on the right.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Like the last time this was introduced, I think this only helps the big parties and their bosses rather than the people. This prevents smaller parties like the DA from ensuring their representation as any special election to a seat vacated by their members would quite easily become a 2-way race between the two largest parties, with smaller ones having no real way to realistically compete. I get the reasoning why this may be thought of as a good idea, but for the reasons I've outlined I'll have to oppose it for now.

Not if most seats that are vacant are not from smaller parties like DA, while secondly it's less likely a seat from a minor party would become vacant, given they usually are active. It would also eliminate the possibility of strategical manoeuvring someone to "another seat". I believe in direct elections, even if major parties are at an advantage, in that case they would have to make a deal with one of the major parties, while major parties often need support from minor parties too.

When in 2020 a seat from the Green Party was vacant, a major party still found a way to claim the seat for its own without allowing the people to decide over who should get the seat either. In all fairness, the amendment i propose is the more Democratic one, and this is why i urge others to vote aye on this amendment.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I am inclined to agree with the Senators who have pointed out reasons why this amendment would negatively impact fair representation. It ultimately does rest on the resigning Senator to trust their party Chair with appointing an appropriate replacement who represents the views they wish to be represented in the Senate, which does mean that if a vacating Senator really doesn't want a particular Chair to replace them, then they should just join a different party or register as an Independent in order to trigger a special election. So, I am a no on this one.

[Enduro]

The arguments are sound, and I'll likely be voting nay

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

Like the last time this was introduced, I think this only helps the big parties and their bosses rather than the people. This prevents smaller parties like the DA from ensuring their representation as any special election to a seat vacated by their members would quite easily become a 2-way race between the two largest parties, with smaller ones having no real way to realistically compete. I get the reasoning why this may be thought of as a good idea, but for the reasons I've outlined I'll have to oppose it for now.

Not if most seats that are vacant are not from smaller parties like DA, while secondly it's less likely a seat from a minor party would become vacant, given they usually are active. It would also eliminate the possibility of strategical manoeuvring someone to "another seat". I believe in direct elections, even if major parties are at an advantage, in that case they would have to make a deal with one of the major parties, while major parties often need support from minor parties too.

When in 2020 a seat from the Green Party was vacant, a major party still found a way to claim the seat for its own without allowing the people to decide over who should get the seat either. In all fairness, the amendment i propose is the more Democratic one, and this is why i urge others to vote aye on this amendment.

The green situation was a very big exception though with all of the party leadership resigning/deregistering before they could appoint a successor. Not that I condone what was done, of course, but this would mean that in situations like what arose when transit was appointed SoS, would cause the DA to lose it’s only representation.

[YE]

Even as a former big party boss, I don’t support this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ah yes, the Green Party situation. As I recall the Green Party had already collapsed (for reasons of duplicitous dealing and scheming paired with incompetent execution) when it was in a position where the seat became vacant. This, combined with weak bylaws and a collapsed leadership structure, made it possible for the seat to be seized in this manner.

Keep in mind that the Constitutional stipulations only dictates who makes the appointment, not how it is sourced. it is perfectly plausible for a party to hold a vote and primary on who gets the appointment and then the chair just appoints who ever wins that process. This still complies with the constitution mind you because the chair is still officially processing the paperwork. It is also possible for parties to limit the ability of "invaders" to seize control of a party through various restrictions on voting by new members, minimum membership time to vote in party election, serve as party leadership etc.

There is no other example of seat being stolen in this manner and says more about the Greens than it does about this process.

As for the "big party making deals", what good is the JCP making a deal with the LNF to win an At-large special when the At-large special was replacing the only At-large conservative in the Senate, who would otherwise win a five seat regular election (at the time), but could never win a head to head 50+1% special.

The end result is an unrepresentative chamber, it would be the same as if the state of New York decided that it was going to replace the holder of highly Republican NY-26 last decade via a special election of the whole state.

 

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Giving this doesn't seem to have the support it requires (two thirds of the chamber) and giving there's something to say about the counterarguments, i'd like to have a vote on this and clear a spot for a different act.

Thus I move to motion to have a final vote.

[Mr. Reactionary]

24 hours for objections.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Hearing no objections this will come up for a funal vote when the other votes close tomorrow.

[Mr. Reactionary]

A final vote is now open on this resolution until midnight eastern on Tuesday. Please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

Senate Resolution

To amend the Constitution to require special elections for at-large Senate vacancies.

Be it Resolved in the Atlasian Senate Assembled, that upon ratification by 2/3rds of the Regions, the constitution shall be amended as follows:

The People Should Decide Amendment

Article III, Section 2, shall read as follows:

Section 2. Elections to the Senate.

The manner of election for at-large Senators shall be as follows:

i. The nine at-large Senators shall be elected for a term of two months by the eligible voters of the Republic according to a method of proportional representation prescribed by the Senate. Elections for the seats shall be held in the months of February, April, June, August, October, and December.

ii. If no other method of proportional representation is prescribed by law, at-large Senate elections shall operate on single transferable vote.

iii. At-large Senate vacancies occuring within thirty days of the next election shall be filled through appointment by the executive of the former Senator’s Party; but should a vacancy occur as the result of the death, expulsion, or resignation of an at-large Senator not being a member of a major Party or of an at-large Senator more than thirty days prior to the next election, then a special election shall be held within twenty days of the vacancy to choose a replacement to serve the remainder of the existing term.

This Constitutional Amendment requires a special election to be held to fill a vacancy in the Senate created by the death, resignation, or removal of an at-large member more than thirty days prior to the next election. This empowers the people of Atlasia rather than corrupt political parties to choose who represents them and prevents candidates from deceptively and unethically running for at-large Senate solely to resign and allow a party to undemocratically install a replacement.

[Liminal Trans Girl]

Aye

[Mr. Reactionary]

Aye

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Nay

[Saint Milei]

nay

[Utah Neolib]

Nay

[Enduro]

Nay